Home Office & Fire Sector Federation Evidence - Thursday 10th March 2022 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:20 Would

00:00:28 you ask Mr. Davis to come back in, please?

00:00:39 Thank you. Just do sit down, Mr. Davis.

00:00:47 All right. Ready to carry on? Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Can.

00:00:50 Can. Thanks, sir. Mr. Davis, could we go back to the document we were looking at before lunch, which is at FSF quadruple0, excuse me, 03710.

00:01:03 And if we could look at the penultimate paragraph in the right hand column, it says this. There is undoubtedly an important role for industry endorsed third-party certification schemes, but

00:01:15 third-party certification schemes, but the schemes must themselves be fit for stated purpose and properly accredited. The optimum effect will only be achieved by officially mandating third-party independent schemes or by receiving much

00:01:26 independent schemes or by receiving much wider

00:01:29 wider specifier and client endorsement by insisting on third party schemes to mitigate risks by specification. Did you read the report as calling for industry endorsed third party

00:01:41 industry endorsed third party certification schemes for fire risk assessment? Yes.

00:01:45 Yes. Yes.

00:01:45 Yes. What did you understand it to mean when it said that the optimum effect will only be achieved by officially mandating third party independent schemes? Who

00:01:56 third party independent schemes? Who should be officially mandating them? Well, officially mandated means government. Um, I think that's fairly self-explanatory. I should explain. and I wasn't involved in the the sector at

00:02:10 I wasn't involved in the the sector at this time. I think this kind of predates me, doesn't it, Mr. David? Don't worry. I just want Yeah. So,

00:02:15 Yeah. So, these documents to you. Okay. Um but but certainly my understanding of officially mandating once we use the words mandating, we're talking of uh government legislation

00:02:26 talking of uh government legislation either in primary or secondary legislation. The second part of it um the the specifier endorsement u and client that's clearly where a client you

00:02:37 client that's clearly where a client you know a company a business retailer would specify that they would only use third party accredited people. So effectively using procurement as the

00:02:48 So effectively using procurement as the means of guaranteeing competency. Yes. Could we turn to page 11 of this report? Uh where we find in the left hand column a series of recommendations. Um

00:02:59 Um and the first recommendation reads thus um there is no need for further legislation. However, uh the sector should lead on the application of knowledge linked to

00:03:10 application of knowledge linked to competency certification data sharing and awareness programs. the government should endorse this process and ask that part of the sector for a formal plan of action. So did you agree or by that I

00:03:24 action. So did you agree or by that I mean the federation that the sector should from 2010 onwards lead on the application of knowledge linked competency certification data sharing and awareness programs.

00:03:35 and awareness programs. I certainly believe that was the aspiration at the time. Um it was ambitious but that was the aspiration and I should explain in context industry tends to prefer third party endorsed

00:03:46 tends to prefer third party endorsed schemes rather than being told um legislated to do things and that's why you were keen whilst it should be sectorled nonetheless the

00:03:57 should be sectorled nonetheless the government should endorse it. Yes. Yes. Now if we can go back to your first statement which is a FSF quadruple036/4

00:04:14 and if we could uh look at paragraph 20 in the first line at the bottom. Thank you. Uh you explained that the group of fire sector interests which had produced fire futures reports had itself evolved

00:04:27 fire futures reports had itself evolved through a loose fire community partnership into a more established fire sector partnership which the department of communities and local government then invited to join in future work. If we go

00:04:38 invited to join in future work. If we go over the page associated with developing a new national framework for the fire service

00:04:49 national framework for the fire service which included a specific reference to national resilience and ensuring public safety against identified national risks. Uh can you help us at this stage? So we're talking at the time the

00:05:02 So we're talking at the time the federation was inaugurated. What was the nature of the relationship between DCLG and the Federation? You touched upon it earlier, but can you give us a broader idea of what the nature of the relationship was? I thought it was very close. Um,

00:05:16 I thought it was very close. Um, as I say, I joined a little bit later, but I certainly had the impression uh from those that I was talking to who were in this partnership of course at the time, Mr. Robinson as well that the

00:05:28 the time, Mr. Robinson as well that the the government were very keen uh to see the sector formed into a a federation to take more ownership of of the work uh the guidance and so on the national

00:05:39 the guidance and so on the national framework that was being established for the fire and rescue service and that therefore they were quite quite keen to support it um help it establish itself.

00:05:51 support it um help it establish itself. Now, if we can stay in your statement, but go on to page 8 and look at paragraph 32 and if we could look at the third line and second sentence. Um,

00:06:04 third line and second sentence. Um, you're talking here about the objects of the federation and you said it also coordinates and promotes activities nationally and internationally to positively influence key decision makers. Um, pausing there, which key

00:06:17 makers. Um, pausing there, which key decision makers did you expect the federation uh to be able to positively influence? Well, nationally it would be national government. So through the departments directly concerned with building

00:06:28 directly concerned with building regulations, fire safety, that would be fire and rescue service. Those would be the departments. And what activities or by what activities would you seek positively to influence government? the the the

00:06:41 influence government? the the the process quite often was that um when a discussion was held a letter maybe would be uh

00:06:48 be uh produced calling for action or support or there'd be informal contact as I mentioned the fora be before a forum there was an executive committee and that in that executive committee quite

00:07:00 that in that executive committee quite often the issues would be discussed and I think I mentioned earlier did I Anthony Maud was a link he would often be there at those meetings so there was a a very strong um connection

00:07:11 a a very strong um connection thank you

00:07:12 thank you between us and government in that context around fire particularly. Now if we look at the final line of paragraph 32 there you refer to the federation offering technical briefings

00:07:24 federation offering technical briefings uh to whom would you offer those type of briefings and can you give us an idea as the range of subjects on which you provide advice? Most of the technical briefings I think would be offered again to to people

00:07:35 would be offered again to to people working within the sector interests. So they'd be around um the built environment primarily. They may be involved one of our members for example uh National Fire Chief's Council now C4

00:07:47 uh National Fire Chief's Council now C4 as it was then um we we'd be working closely with them maybe on fire alarm false alarms trying to deal with technical issues around that and that could of course involve the technical

00:07:58 could of course involve the technical equipment side of it. Our members included the people who made produced installed alarm systems and so on. So you that engagement would very much be with the sub- sector of that interest.

00:08:10 with the sub- sector of that interest. Now if I can move on to the separate topic which is the structure of the federation. Now as you you made the point emphatically before lunch that the federation is a voluntary organization

00:08:21 federation is a voluntary organization and uh those who conduct um FSF business are not paid for their work. Is that a fair summary? Yes. I mean we I'm the only I'm called the executive officer but I'm a

00:08:32 the executive officer but I'm a part-timer. I'm I'm paid for two days a week now, but that only started four years ago. At this time, um, primarily the support came from organizations like the Fire Protection Association provided

00:08:44 the Fire Protection Association provided a secretariat. So, virtually everyone, including myself, was was in their work, doing their their role, their job, and contributing to the federation in their voluntary time. Thank you. Now, if we stay in your

00:08:56 Thank you. Now, if we stay in your statement, but go to page 23 and paragraph 94.

00:09:03 Uh we see here that um just fleshing out the detail on this point that the federation is a nonvat registered company with no full-time employees and as such it has very limited resources and capacity. From what you say that's

00:09:15 and capacity. From what you say that's always been the case. Yes, it has. I mean the the membership fee uh by subscription was relatively low. Um it's certainly not of the height of some professional bodies. Um and

00:09:26 of some professional bodies. Um and therefore as you I think there's 50 members just over 50 members and as you can see you're not we're not hitting a VAT target and there was no real income stream. In fact um apart from when we

00:09:38 stream. In fact um apart from when we wanted to do something particular that was usually done through partnership with some of our uh members who were particularly interested in that area of activity. And if I was to signal out one, it would probably be the fire

00:09:49 one, it would probably be the fire protection association who have been a a continuous supporter of many years. And is it right to say that at no time did you receive government funding? I've never I'm unaware totally of any

00:10:02 I've never I'm unaware totally of any government funding. Just so that we get the um the personnel right. Um the chairman was Brian Robinson. Is that right? When it was formed. Yes. The deputy chairman was Paul Fuller. Yes.

00:10:12 Yes. Uh vice chairman was yourself. Yes.

00:10:14 Yes. And the treasurer was Ronnie King. about who we heard earlier this morning. That's right. Now, the work of the Federation was divided into work streams. And if we go to um paragraph 34 of your first uh uh

00:10:28 to um paragraph 34 of your first uh uh witness statement, that's at page eight or at least the foot of page eight.

00:10:35 Uh here you set out uh the various work streams. Is that right? Yes.

00:10:40 Yes. And you led the competency and accreditation work stream. That's correct. And if we turn over the page to page n, we see that there was a under little c the second particular

00:10:54 a under little c the second particular item there. There was a major incident lacal housework stream and that was chaired by Mike Wood. Is that right? That's right. That's right. And um we don't need to go to it, but at paragraph 52 of this statement, you

00:11:06 paragraph 52 of this statement, you explained that the Lacknel House workstream was set up to address the specific issues that the coroner had identified as a result of the inquests. That's correct. That's correct. Now, if we look at paragraph 35 in your

00:11:17 Now, if we look at paragraph 35 in your statement, which is at the moment at the bottom of the frame in the first line, you say this. In general, the membership of the work streams was and remains open to all FSF

00:11:28 streams was and remains open to all FSF members by self- selection. Now, if that's so, if self- selection was the mode by which this was done, how did the chairman ensure that the members with the appropriate expertise were working

00:11:40 the appropriate expertise were working on the relevant work stream? he would contact them. He would he'd invite them to participate. I think it it it's worth um just saying that. So, sorry to interrupt. So, it's more nomination than selection as it were.

00:11:52 nomination than selection as it were. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Self- selection. Arm twisting plain English. um that I should I should just explain that it was quite organic the growth at the beginning of the of the federation

00:12:04 beginning of the of the federation because

00:12:06 because you were dealing with a voluntary organization um people contributing their own time and effort people with a particular interest would be the ones who say you know I think this is an area we should cover we should look at and

00:12:18 we should cover we should look at and the tendency was to say well I agree with you um if you can form that grouping and and find sufficient interest then please do and and that's effectively I think what we're saying

00:12:29 effectively I think what we're saying there.

00:12:30 there. Arm twisting is less effective on non-members. How did you get non-members involved if their expertise were considered to be helpful and relevant? I think there is a passion uh which maybe doesn't come through in my

00:12:43 maybe doesn't come through in my statement. There is a passion amongst a lot of people in fire to protect the public. That's where it comes from. And did you ever encounter any problems persuading non-members to help your

00:12:54 persuading non-members to help your work? There are practical issues such as time available and the rest of it there there are ve very often and that was the difficulty. I mean for example if you were trying to organize a meeting

00:13:05 if you were trying to organize a meeting just getting the people together can be a major was a major problem you know finding a suitable date uh getting to a place I mean it's interesting that as we

00:13:16 place I mean it's interesting that as we move forward and and particularly with covid working online has eased some of those problems but originally when this was happening 10 years ago you know just finding a room agreeing a date getting

00:13:29 finding a room agreeing a date getting the agendas and getting people together was an an effort. Now staying in your first statement, can we go back to page 8 and look at paragraph 33 and here you explain that the original

00:13:42 and here you explain that the original organizational structure was administered by an executive committee which you referred to earlier formed from elective federation officers and from those members appointed to advise the federation who were drawn from the

00:13:53 the federation who were drawn from the chairs of its technical committees or work streams. Now in very brief terms, Mr. Davis, what was the principal function or functions of the executive committee

00:14:03 committee to steer the business of the of the federation to to give sight? There was a there was a feedback loop. Our chairman particularly was meeting with with others outside our our uh group of of

00:14:17 others outside our our uh group of of interests and the idea was to obviously bring that together in an executive to deal with the day-to-day uh management um to assess and give priority to where

00:14:28 um to assess and give priority to where energy needed to be given. And looking at the membership of the executive uh committee, can we go to just to give a practical example a set of minutes from the 1st of May 2013

00:14:40 of minutes from the 1st of May 2013 which are which are at FSF quadruple 424

00:14:52 and we see the attendees um are listed there and we can see on page one it's the left hand side about 10 or so names down. Anthony Maud from DCLG.

00:15:06 Was Mr. Maud officially a member of the executive group meeting or was he simply invited to attend all executive group meetings?

00:15:13 meetings? I I would use the phrase observer and was the assumption that he would brief government on what you were doing?

00:15:24 brief government on what you were doing? Yes.

00:15:24 Yes. And do you know who within government he briefed?

00:15:27 briefed? I'm sorry I don't.

00:15:31 We can also see uh from the list of apologies um that Sir Ken Knight and Peter Holland, then the outgoing and incoming chief fire and rescue advisers uh gave their apologies. Um would the

00:15:45 uh gave their apologies. Um would the chief fire and rescue adviser routinely attend?

00:15:49 attend? Sometimes. I I I can't recall exactly how often, but I mean the minutes will show, but um I think that's a good example of what you asked me before of the sort of people being invited to

00:16:01 the sort of people being invited to participate. So grand observers in that regard. I said yes and of course they had knowledge from where they were coming from that could contribute and assist. And was your expectation or assumption that uh the chief fire and rescue

00:16:13 that uh the chief fire and rescue adviser, Mr. Mud would discuss the federation's deliberations with officials and ministers at the department. It was an assumption, yes, but certainly a fair assumption. I think

00:16:26 a fair assumption. I think was there ever a direct line of communication between the federation and any particular fire minister? There was correspondence, but the minister wouldn't attend or send

00:16:38 but the minister wouldn't attend or send an official observer uh to represent him.

00:16:43 him. I'm think not not to represent the minister. No, no. But officials would occasionally attend to give a briefing or something of that ilk depending what was happening.

00:16:54 was happening. Now, if we can go to the minutes of the executive group meeting of the 7th of March, 2012, which are found at FSF quadruple0239.

00:17:09 Now it's March 2012, so it's before the partnership became the federation. And we can see that the membership is smaller certainly compared to the last

00:17:20 smaller certainly compared to the last set of minutes we looked at. Um, but was this executive group meeting similar to the federation's later executive group meetings in terms of the attendees? I think so. And as as you say, it was

00:17:32 I think so. And as as you say, it was smaller because we hadn't formed the the federation with all its work streams. And I think also it illustrates if you look where it was held that the support of government that's a government building um

00:17:44 building um it's the department's headquarters isn't it?

00:17:46 it? And we can see that Mr. Maud attended and we can also see there's a Graeme Pointer attended from the department. Yes.

00:17:53 Yes. And if we go to page two in item four

00:17:58 uh we can see there was an update from Neil or update on Neil O'Conor meeting. Who was Neil O'Connor? Neil O' Conor was the director I think

00:18:09 Neil O' Conor was the director I think of DCLG fire and we can see there the initial I might be wrong with that. I mean but that's a high ranking official within that department.

00:18:20 that department. Okay. Um BR is um presumably Brian Robinson the chairman and there following the initials it says this at item four BR assured the group of the positive tone of the discussions

00:18:32 of the positive tone of the discussions which covered the FSP constitution funding business plan and national framework. Neil was wholly positive regarding the FSP, reiterating the support from government for SFP's

00:18:44 support from government for SFP's endeavors uh to provide guidance on policy and made assurances to Brian Robinson of continued support from DCLG. Now, if we can turn to the final

00:18:55 Now, if we can turn to the final paragraph in in item four, am that's Anthony Maud reiterated Brian Robinson's feedback and added that access to other key contacts within government departments would be possible a gateway

00:19:08 departments would be possible a gateway uh to the right people in the right places. Now, do you know who those key contacts were intended to be? I don't. Um I wasn't that close to it

00:19:19 I don't. Um I wasn't that close to it then. No.

00:19:21 then. No. Now can I turn to the competency and accredititation workstream itself? First of all, can you remember when you were appointed the chairman of that workstream? Around uh the April time I think I I

00:19:35 Around uh the April time I think I I April of which year? It' be 2012 was it? Yeah, I think so. Or 2013. 13, wasn't it? More likely 13. Yes, 13 it was. I was thinking 12 was

00:19:47 Yes, 13 it was. I was thinking 12 was when I became a vice chairman, but the the work stream didn't really form till the following year as Justice Kirkham was um preparing the outcome of uh black

00:19:59 was um preparing the outcome of uh black all out

00:19:59 all out and she sent her letters to v some interested parties at the end of March 2013. So I suspect it's April. It's April. Now um can you help us who were the members of your workstream?

00:20:12 were the members of your workstream? I would need to look at the minutes, but um the the work were there was certainly people like uh FPA uh if in other words the the bodies that were were starting

00:20:25 the the bodies that were were starting to get into into fire risk assessment um there were people I think BA BFV which is again one of our members. So it was it was that group of people who had been

00:20:37 it was that group of people who had been in the FIA people who'd been involved in the frack document which I think you've referred to earlier uh the criteria it was that sort of grouping um I think I

00:20:49 was that sort of grouping um I think I tried to invite the previous chairman Ian Cox people who had obviously been involved in the original development and was Anthony Maud or any other

00:21:00 and was Anthony Maud or any other representative of the department an an inviteee at two workstream meetings. No, there weren't particularly invitees, but the I think the the way we worked is

00:21:13 but the I think the the way we worked is if there was a meeting happening, I mean, you would be alerted that the meeting might be happening and if you wanted to attend, you certainly wouldn't be prevented. So, it's an open invitation.

00:21:24 So, it's an open invitation. Yes. Yes. An open invitation. And how regular did you meet initially? Um initially I think we we met in the uh the April as you say then we we met subsequently to that that year. Um we

00:21:38 subsequently to that that year. Um we made a report if I I I I gave a document a chronological document to try and try and assist the inquiry. I I think if you look at that it'll give you a better feeling.

00:21:48 feeling. Okay. So it was quarterly or thereabouts. I think sometimes it may have expanded beyond that but yes that was the intent. Now, we'll come to the detail of the work um in in due course, but you were

00:21:59 work um in in due course, but you were required to build upon the work that had already been done um by the fire risk assessment competency council. Is that a fair summary? Uh in part,

00:22:11 Uh in part, we came together effectively because you mentioned Ronny King and people like that before. We knew the Lacanol House uh coroner was going to raise certain

00:22:22 uh coroner was going to raise certain issues. So the group formed in advance I think of the coroner's letter. Were you ever a member of the competency council?

00:22:31 council? No. No.

00:22:34 No. No. Um was there and so when you effectively given the heads up that the coroner was going to be looking at the competency of fire risk assessors. Yeah.

00:22:43 Yeah. Did you have a more precise idea of the scope of the issue that concerned her or was it more broadly drawn as competency of fire risk assessors? it was broad and

00:22:54 of fire risk assessors? it was broad and until the letter arrived the key issues she was concerned with hadn't really uh come across and and I think it's important to put it in context as well there were two issues on the go really

00:23:06 there were two issues on the go really um there was a long-standing concern about the built environment we've touched very briefly on that and the fire risk assessment the two things sit together and I I think this is quite

00:23:17 together and I I think this is quite important

00:23:19 important no no no amount of good fire assessment work will necessarily correct a poor building. The design of that building is the building regulation, the ADB and so

00:23:30 the building regulation, the ADB and so on. And and therefore you we needed to bring the two things together and the emphasis therefore on my work was to look at the fire risk assessment

00:23:42 was to look at the fire risk assessment side of the business. Whereas other people were starting already to look at the built environment side and particularly I mean one to to put it in again a little context one of the issues

00:23:55 again a little context one of the issues clearly raised was compartmentation which internally a fire risk assessor might spot depending on how intrusive the work needed to be by which I mean for example if it was lifting a ceiling

00:24:07 for example if it was lifting a ceiling Mr. D, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think we're probably straying from matters which will cover due course. I'm just trying to establish essentials of really what work you're building on. Could we go back to your first witness statement which is a FSF quadruple036/26.

00:24:27 And if we could look at paragraph 104, um you say that uh the FSF subsequently assumed responsibility for the Frack documents. Yes.

00:24:38 Yes. At the request of Ian Cox in 2015 after a review of activities. Is that a fair summary? Yes.

00:24:45 Yes. And so what work had had Frack done beyond the various competency criteria that you were asked to build on? When we were asked to review it, the idea was that clearly having written the document

00:24:57 that clearly having written the document and issued the document 2011. Yes.

00:25:00 Yes. Um the idea was that we should review our own uh principle was that you should review these things at least within 5 years. So the argument was we should be reviewing the frack document.

00:25:11 reviewing the frack document. Okay. Now, could we turn to a report that you prepared for discussion at a forum meeting in May 2013 and which can be found at hom quadruple 01351

00:25:24 quadruple 01351 and if we could go to page five of that.

00:25:30 Thank you. Now this is generally concerned with competency of fire risk assessors and halfway down this page there's a sentence which starts with the word subsequently um which reads as follows

00:25:43 subsequently um which reads as follows subsequently the FSF at the forum meeting 9th of January 2013 item 8.2 Members had been requested by David Smith on behalf of the competency council to agree to assume the role of

00:25:56 council to agree to assume the role of guardian to provide ongoing support in the form of monitoring events to determine whether the competency competency council needed to be reconvened to consider or respond to events not

00:26:08 to consider or respond to events not being a standing committee. This request was agreed and a decision was made of decision made to form a work group for that purpose. Uh do you recall that in happening in January 2013?

00:26:20 happening in January 2013? Yes.

00:26:21 Yes. Yes.

00:26:21 Yes. So is it right that while formal responsibility for the guides was transferred in 2015, the FSF became guardian of those guides earlier in January 2013 and was

00:26:33 earlier in January 2013 and was responsible for reconvening the competency council if and when required? Yes.

00:26:39 Yes. What was the reason for the federation becoming the guardian of the do these documents in January 2013? I think when when David raised the issue, it was simply that it seemed the logical place

00:26:51 simply that it seemed the logical place uh for it to be done because many members of the original FRA group were in fact members of the federation. Understood. Now, can we turn to Lacol

00:27:03 Understood. Now, can we turn to Lacol House itself and the fire which took place on the 3rd of July 2009? The coroner wrote to the federation on the 30th of March 2013 and the letter can be found at hom

00:27:15 and the letter can be found at hom quadruple 04356.

00:27:22 I'm assuming but shout if this is not correct that you are very familiar with this letter. Yes, I've seen this. Yes. Now it's addressed to Mr. Robinson as the chairman as vice chairman. Did you

00:27:33 the chairman as vice chairman. Did you see it when it was received? It would have been circulated I think fairly quickly. Now if we can look at the foot of page one, the coroner said this in the last

00:27:45 one, the coroner said this in the last paragraph on that page. Evidence seduced at these inquests indicated that fire brigade generally assume that compartmentation of individual flats or masons in high-rise residential

00:27:56 masons in high-rise residential buildings would prevent the spread of fire from one dwelling to others or to common parts. However, the turning over the page evidence also indicated that particularly with older housing stock

00:28:09 particularly with older housing stock compartmentation might be breached as a consequence of, for example, maintenance or refurbishment work undertaken by building owners or modification to individual dwellings undertaken by

00:28:21 individual dwellings undertaken by occupiers. Now, in short, were you aware of those issues before the coroner highlighted them in her letter? Yes, I think so. The letter continues and we're looking at the second

00:28:32 and we're looking at the second paragraph on page two. Thus, evidence was also given that a fire risk assessor should inspect individual flats or masons within a high-rise residential building to be able to inspect any

00:28:44 building to be able to inspect any features which could be seen inside but not outside the flat or maze and which might indicate that compartmentation had been breached. I understand your

00:28:55 been breached. I understand your federation seeks to give voice to and exert influence in shaping future policy and strategy related to the UK fire sector. Now, was that a fair summary of

00:29:06 sector. Now, was that a fair summary of the federation's aims at that time?

00:29:11 Sorry, which is the aim that you I understand your federation seek voice. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now it continues uh thus I also understand or I that the

00:29:24 uh thus I also understand or I that the fire risk assessment competency council the council works within your federation. My attention has been drawn to the council's guides competency criteria for

00:29:35 council's guides competency criteria for fire risk assesses published on the 21st of November 2011 and choosing a competent fire risk assessor published on the 1st of February 2013. These indicate that your federation is

00:29:47 These indicate that your federation is able to offer guidance as to some aspects of fire risk assessment. Did you agree at the time that the federation was able to offer guidance to the extent summarized by the coroner?

00:29:58 summarized by the coroner? Yes. And if we could look at the penultimate paragraph of this letter which says this. It appears that your federation is well placed to shape policy at a national level relating to

00:30:09 policy at a national level relating to the scope of fire risk assessment and in particular with regard to the assessment of high-rise residential buildings and to offer guidance as to how assessment should be carried out. I trust that your federation will consider whether it has

00:30:22 federation will consider whether it has a role in clarifying the scope of fire risk assessment and in offering further guidance as to the training of fire risk assessors. Was it your view at the time that the federation could shape policy at the

00:30:34 federation could shape policy at the national level regarding the scope of fire risk assessment to offer guidance on how to carry out assessments and to offer guidance on the training of fire risk assessors? I think we felt we could

00:30:47 risk assessors? I think we felt we could certainly influence those things as it's expressed there. Can we look at FSF quadruple019?

00:31:02 Now this is a uh summary note of a meeting of the lapal house workstream on the 30th of April 2013. And if we look roughly

00:31:13 April 2013. And if we look roughly halfway down under the heading context, there's a note which says this competency workstream also formed led by Dennis Davis to build on the core

00:31:25 Dennis Davis to build on the core principles from the competency council and take on the details of competency development. Was that why your work stream was set up? Yes. Yes.

00:31:37 Yes. Yes. And it relates specifically to the development of uh competency of fire risk assessors. Yes. To try and address the coroner's request.

00:31:47 request. Now if we can look at two documents that predate this meeting. Um the first is a HOM quadruple 0302.

00:32:03 Uh as you see this is a document which we saw this morning which you may have noticed entitled initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005.

00:32:14 reform fire safety order 2005. If we can go to the bottom of page four

00:32:20 we can see it was published by the department for communities and local government in March 2009. Again can I assume that you've seen this document before?

00:32:28 before? I will have done. Yes. Do you remember how you came across it? general interest I I don't think particularly searching for it. Can we turn to page 43?

00:32:45 We see here uh the title FRA's views of third party safety consultants. Now FRAAS are fire and rescue authorities in this document. And

00:32:56 rescue authorities in this document. And if we go to the end of this page, the final paragraph says this. Some FRAAS described concerns they felt over the work of third-party consultants or other commercial fire safety organizations.

00:33:09 commercial fire safety organizations. The central problem they raised was the variability in the perceived level of competence among these consultants. Was those concerns at least something about which you were aware at the time?

00:33:20 about which you were aware at the time? I was aware. Yeah. And would you have been aware at the time of publication of this document in or about March 2009? Yes, I would. If we can go to page 46 and look at the second paragraph on that

00:33:32 and look at the second paragraph on that page, it says this. While the FRA's recognized and welcome the existence and development of registers of quality assured fire safety services, several said that a national scheme of

00:33:43 said that a national scheme of accreditation or licensing would be helpful and preferable. Uh were you aware in March 2009 or thereabouts uh that there had been registers of quality assured fire safety

00:33:55 registers of quality assured fire safety services developed? Yes.

00:33:58 Yes. Can you help us? What were they and who developed them? Um

00:34:05 Um there were we mentioned that a couple of our members the institutions had uh established their own uh registers. Institution of Fire Engineers I think had established a register by 10 2010 um

00:34:17 had established a register by 10 2010 um the FIA um through some of its organizations uh had started to build schemes primarily I think it's the timing of this I'm just not too sure

00:34:29 timing of this I'm just not too sure about um UKcast accredited schemes um were primarily led by by two organizations uh BAE who I've already mentioned uh and Warrington Fire testing

00:34:42 mentioned uh and Warrington Fire testing I think was another organization and they were UKAS accredited schemes um and they had had started to build these schemes as a way of giving third party

00:34:53 schemes as a way of giving third party assurance to fire risk assessors. Thank you. Were you aware also at the time that there was appetite at least on the part of some fire and rescue authorities uh for a national scheme for

00:35:05 authorities uh for a national scheme for accreditation or licensing? Yes.

00:35:07 Yes. Are you able to give the panel about how how widespread and deep that appetite was on the part of fire and rescue authorities? I'd certainly I mean I as I say I was in

00:35:21 I'd certainly I mean I as I say I was in POV wasn't I think as part of this time. So I was aware that fire and rescue services were concerned about the quality of some fire risk assessments. I mean there was a suggestion for example that anyone and I mean anyone could call

00:35:34 that anyone and I mean anyone could call themselves a fire risk assessor uh and go out and sell fire risk assessments and that clearly uh worried fire and rescue authorities um and their services

00:35:46 rescue authorities um and their services and I I equally think that that within um a few of us and you ask for a level that's very difficult um for me to to say but there was certainly a drive from

00:35:58 say but there was certainly a drive from and I was one of them um a drive some some people to ensure that there was a national register really that we bought this into one place. Now if we can just for the sake of completeness look at the bottom of this

00:36:10 completeness look at the bottom of this page and really um the text under paragraph 3.10 10. Um, we see identified there areas for future support or improvement. And the final bullet point at the bottom of this page is one which

00:36:21 at the bottom of this page is one which says this, the desire for better regulation or accreditation of third-party fire safety companies. Put bluntly, and this I think reflects what you've just said, fire and rescue

00:36:33 you've just said, fire and rescue authorities were looking for more effective regulation of fire risk assessors as well as others in the fire safety sector. Yes. So I think I think the general call was pe people wanted their assurance. Um

00:36:46 was pe people wanted their assurance. Um they wanted to know that this person was if they'd invited them because go back to where we were when the order came in. No consultants charter. You could do it yourself if it was a very simple

00:36:57 yourself if it was a very simple premises. But if you were obviously moving into more complex buildings and complex area, you certainly wanted assurance that the people you were contracting to support you were

00:37:09 contracting to support you were competent and the only way of doing that was through some some process and I think that's what this is reflecting and the market was looking for a third party independent provider of that assurance

00:37:22 independent provider of that assurance whether it's UKcast or someone else. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now if we just turn over the page to page 47, we see that it's a a start of a new chapter

00:37:32 which is the perceptions and experience of responsible persons. If we can go deeper into this chapter though to page 74

00:37:44 and it's really just below the midway point on the page the text reads this. Several organizations bothmemes that's small and medium-siz

00:37:55 bothmemes that's small and medium-siz enterprises and larger had direct experience of using more than one supplier for risk assessments and were in a position to compare their work. They reported wide variations in the

00:38:06 They reported wide variations in the outputs even when comparing the work of different personnel from the same organization. Does that reflect your experience whether through ane anecdotal knowledge or otherwise of the variability in the

00:38:19 or otherwise of the variability in the performance of risk assessors at the time

00:38:23 time for those comments were certainly being made. Um so it was that wouldn't surprise me let me put it that way. The problem is I have no idea of how deep

00:38:34 problem is I have no idea of how deep and widespread this consultation and that depth was. Um but it's certainly certainly those noises were around um about variability quality

00:38:45 about variability quality and then we have a quotation and then after that quotation the text says this several responsible persons and some of those interviewed from fire safety industry registered a concern over that

00:38:57 industry registered a concern over that wide variation in the quality and competence of those offering fire risk assessment services that again seems to reflect your understanding of if I could put noise in the industry.

00:39:09 if I could put noise in the industry. Yeah, that resonates certainly. Yes. Now, the second document I'd like to take you to is the first version of the competency criteria. Okay.

00:39:17 Okay. Um that were published by the competency council on the 21st of December 2011. Now, we find these homal 347.

00:39:35 And if we could look at page two and the fifth paragraph on that page, it says this. Some members of the business community have suggested that it would be helpful for those who want

00:39:46 it would be helpful for those who want to use the services of a commercial fire risk assessor to be able to access information on those with an appropriate level of competency in fire risk assessment to help them comply with the

00:39:58 assessment to help them comply with the legislation. There has also been growing concern regarding the competence of those who provide these fire risk assessments on a commercial basis i.e. for a fee. Data from the English Fire and Rescue Service

00:40:10 from the English Fire and Rescue Service suggests that the main compliance failure leading to enforcement action is a failure by duty holders to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. This is coupled with the

00:40:21 assessment. This is coupled with the emergence of inadequate fire risk assessments for premises that have suffered multiple fatality fires. Now, did that reflect your views and experience at the time?

00:40:33 experience at the time? Could I just pause for two seconds? I've spilled some water now. Oh, yeah. We'll give you a hand. Don't worry.

00:40:37 worry. Please.

00:40:38 Please. Don't worry. It's usually It's usually embarrassing. This light Thank you. this light cup.

00:40:48 It was a distraction. I'm sorry. Don't worry. Thank you. Thank you very much.

00:40:56 Thank you. Could you just redirect me back to the Of course, please. Please. If I just ask you to rather than force people to listen to me, you'll see that paragraph which starts with the word some members of the business community.

00:41:07 some members of the business community. If you can just read that to yourself.

00:41:25 Okay. Now did that reflect your views and experience at the time? Yes.

00:41:31 Yes. So what we seem to have therefore is by December 2011 uh a general concern within the industry that the competency of fire risk assesses needed to be addressed. Is that a fair summary? Yes.

00:41:42 Yes. And it sought to be addressed by publishing the competency criteria for fire risk assessors. Yes.

00:41:48 Yes. And would you agree that the publication of the LGA guide on purpose-built blocks of flats in July 2011 and then the later publication of PA 79 uh 2012 in August

00:42:00 publication of PA 79 uh 2012 in August 2012 was also intended uh to assist fire risk assessors on how to carry out a proper fire risk assessment. Proper being competent. Yes.

00:42:11 Yes. Yes.

00:42:12 Yes. Now what happened to the earlier proposal that there should be a national scheme of scheme of accreditation or licensing? I don't know where it went. Um

00:42:23 I don't know where it went. Um but it didn't proceed. It didn't appear. No. And I think one of the documents you referred to choosing a fire risk assessor lists the scheme in its annex that did exist.

00:42:35 its annex that did exist. Okay. Now, were you or any other group in the federation able to judge whether the publication of this suite of documents, so the competency criteria, the guide to choosing a fire risk

00:42:46 the guide to choosing a fire risk assessor, the LGA guide and PAS 79 had successfully addressed what appear to be historical concerns about competency of fire risk assessors.

00:42:57 fire risk assessors. Two issues emerged for me. um yes to your broad question because what we were doing was professionalizing fire risk assessment. So you had now a criteria

00:43:10 assessment. So you had now a criteria you had a guide particularly in one sort of premises. There were of course DCL guides, 13 of them already in existence for other premises, but so that there was a local authority guide,

00:43:22 was a local authority guide, purpose-built flats, and we were moving therefore to and with past 79 a methodology. So you were actually creating

00:43:31 creating some of the key elements you need. Um, in other words, you were creating a methodology, a criteria. What you hadn't necessarily got assessment of was skill,

00:43:43 got assessment of was skill, which is a a key component, or behavior, but you were certainly bringing those elements together. And what you you also hadn't got was a complete oversight

00:43:55 hadn't got was a complete oversight of how all that fixed together for one group of assessors. And this is very important. The group of assessors that we're talking about in this context

00:44:06 that we're talking about in this context in the main were often the people who were on those schemes whereas in the marketplace there were hundreds of assessors who were not necessarily on those schemes.

00:44:18 were not necessarily on those schemes. So you'd made a start but the job was not yet complete. Yes. Now if we can go back to the Laknal House workstream uh note from the meeting on the 30th of April 2013 which

00:44:29 meeting on the 30th of April 2013 which was a FSF quadruple 019

00:44:37 and you'll remember the note under the heading context roughly halfway down that first page.

00:44:45 Now despite the suite of documents you probably answered this already but I put it to you. despite the suite of documents that have been published to deal with the concerns about competency. Um why did you come to the view that the

00:44:56 Um why did you come to the view that the federation needed to do further work on competency development? to answer pretty well what I just said that it was to get this overarching view because

00:45:07 this overarching view because the problem was you you you were starting to create the elements but to bring them together really cohesively so that they would work effectively you did need a another layer of control and

00:45:20 need a another layer of control and interest or however you want to put it. Now if we can look at the the work of the work stream itself and uh its members first met on the 12th of April 2013 to discuss scope of work

00:45:31 of April 2013 to discuss scope of work the coroner's letter and to propose a way forward. Now that meeting considered a report which we will now go to which is a HOM quadruple 01351

00:45:42 is a HOM quadruple 01351 and we touched upon this earlier.

00:45:47 If we go to page five,

00:45:52 and you'll remember this from I think a few moments ago, um, we see in the second paragraph, the second sentence, a reference to a meeting held on the 12th of April, 2012. I'm assuming, sorry,

00:46:04 of April, 2012. I'm assuming, sorry, this is a really minor point. I'm assuming that's a typographical error, and it should be Friday the 12th of April, 2013. Yes. Yes. Now the very top of this page is headed fire sector federation

00:46:16 is headed fire sector federation certification and accredititation workstream. Was that the same as the competency and accredititation workstream? It it it is uh the name changed but it

00:46:27 It it it is uh the name changed but it is. Yes, it's changed again. So different labels, same work. Same work. Now if we could turn to page six and see the heading there, competency criteria for fire risk assessors. It says this,

00:46:41 for fire risk assessors. It says this, the existing CCFR criteria were considered relevant but desirable of extension as follows. Now I'm assuming that's a reference there to the competency criteria. Yes.

00:46:52 Yes. Now paragraph three it says this. There was an absence in the CCF of reference to risks posed by modification and refurbishment. This

00:47:03 modification and refurbishment. This could be a new section or subdivision of the existing nine sections. Now, was that view reached after collective discussion? Yes.

00:47:13 Yes. Now, if we turn next to paragraph 4, a greater emphasis on the risks posed by the introduction of new materials, building design, modern engineering practice, and building methods was

00:47:24 practice, and building methods was required, part of H1. Now, were external cladding panels specifically considered as part of that particular conclusion?

00:47:37 I think not specifically but generally um the the concern of new materials generally in design uh modern methods of construction they call and we still call

00:47:49 construction they call and we still call them although they're conventional now um it's how we build buildings um there was a there was a shift in emphasis over probably two decades we gone from

00:48:00 over probably two decades we gone from very prescriptive standards on building control I'm talking about to uh functional and the the role of the compartment which was

00:48:11 the role of the compartment which was very integral to our thinking in fire safety terms was starting to evolve. So atria were appearing in new buildings and and buildings themselves were becoming much more open and and you

00:48:23 becoming much more open and and you didn't see barriers and boundaries in the same way which is what we want as the public. Um but that gave rise to innovations, materials changes, insulation was becoming already then an

00:48:35 insulation was becoming already then an important factor. Energy efficiency was starting. So the the concern was that we were losing pace with the innovation of the industry. The construction industry

00:48:46 the industry. The construction industry is very innovative. And put differently, there's no reason to suppose that external cladding panels were excluded. Absolutely not. Now if we could look at paragraph 5, it said this. The

00:48:58 paragraph 5, it said this. The importance of gaining access into individual premises rather than just to common areas to be incorporated highlighting how compartmentation could be weakened by occupiers.

00:49:09 be weakened by occupiers. Presumably it was important for fire risk assessors to gain access to individual premises. Is that is that what is

00:49:15 what is absolutely um the there was a there was a legal argument for example about a dwelling door. I think that may still persist. Yes. And and clearly the compartment is totally

00:49:28 and clearly the compartment is totally dependent on the quality of that door. And so what if you can't see both sides and so you're aiming to avoid the consequences of a legally arid point? Yes.

00:49:40 Yes. Uh did the group discuss any particular aspects of compartmentation that could be weakened by the activities of occupiers? I mean the common the common sort of discussion would be about people people

00:49:52 discussion would be about people people unknowingly drilling holes through compartment walls you know um I don't want to blame any particular company but television companies putting cables through or a general lack of awareness

00:50:05 through or a general lack of awareness within all sorts of industries but presumably flat entrance doors would be of prime importance for the reasons you've just touched on. Yes. the occupier deciding she didn't

00:50:16 Yes. the occupier deciding she didn't like the look and I'm sorry to put it that way uh of the door and wanted it changing but didn't realize the door was an integral part of the compartment for example taking off things like

00:50:27 for example taking off things like self-closing devices correct yeah or altering the line mongery or things like that which would weaken the door now if we can look at the bottom of page six there's a heading that says

00:50:38 six there's a heading that says execution of fire risk assessment and purpose-built flats and a paragraph one underneath heading. It says this. The 2011 local government group fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats guide

00:50:51 and purpose-built blocks of flats guide offered a substantial start in addressing the fire issues in high-rise residential property. It should be reviewed, incorporated, and promoted for use as additional guidance on high-rise residential premises. Why did the group

00:51:03 residential premises. Why did the group think it needed to be reviewed, incorporated, and promoted? I think it it was accepted that it was a very good guide. It wasn't particularly well known and the idea was therefore it

00:51:15 well known and the idea was therefore it should be drawn into the orbit of fire risk assessment for these particular type of premises and promoted as such. Do you know why the LGA guide was not updated?

00:51:26 updated? No, I don't. No. Now, if we could turn over the page to page seven under the heading competency and assessment, um the document says this. The FSF was not to be seen as a

00:51:39 this. The FSF was not to be seen as a third-party competency council but did have as the coroner put it national influence and as such should act as the guardian of the gold standard. Therefore, the objective should be to

00:51:50 Therefore, the objective should be to create a quality assurance board charged with ensuring that ensuring the parties such as those who are signary to the CCC FRA abide by their commitment and

00:52:01 FRA abide by their commitment and introduce processes to enable their risk assessors to clearly demonstrate competency. Now, underneath that paragraph, we can see uh there are 11 points. Um I'd like to ask you about the

00:52:13 points. Um I'd like to ask you about the second and third. Uh the second says this, FSF should recommend to each certification scheme owner in the CCCFR that their scheme offers specific

00:52:24 that their scheme offers specific recognition against each of the existing nine areas covered in the CCCFR. That the individual assessor is judge competent and this would be known as a passport. three that each passport

00:52:37 passport. three that each passport scheme should also offer a graded level of competency in each area from one to three where three is the highest in each level reflecting skills and understanding.

00:52:48 understanding. In summary, why did the group consider that the passport scheme should be recommended? I think it goes back to your questions around national register as well. Um it w it was about to ensure that quality

00:53:01 w it was about to ensure that quality assurance as it mentions uh could be demonstrated could be shown. Um and without some overarching uh arrangement and this was the suggestion being made

00:53:13 and this was the suggestion being made um it was going to be very difficult to show that the elements had been pulled together. They would still be living in their their individual pockets. Would the passport scheme though only capture those who are already registered under

00:53:25 those who are already registered under existing certification schemes and it wouldn't uh cover uh uncert uncertificated fire risk assessors? Yes. Yes.

00:53:35 Yes. Yes. And that would be the big gap in regulation of the market. Absolutely. But one took the view that you have to start somewhere. How would you fill that regulatory gap?

00:53:46 How would you fill that regulatory gap? How do you ensure the regulation of uncertified fire risk assessors? It can only be by government mandate i.e. legislation or regulation. Yes, I I I I use a very simple analogy.

00:53:59 Yes, I I I I use a very simple analogy. Um

00:54:01 Um testing of a car. There is a mandate of vehicles of certain age must have this test. There are approved centers where this test can be carried out and there

00:54:13 this test can be carried out and there is a regime which is the test itself a standard. I think what we were trying what to say was that we'd got elements of this but we hadn't got it lined up at

00:54:25 of this but we hadn't got it lined up at all in that way and only by having that sort of solid link can you really assure that something as important as fire safety

00:54:35 safety would be assured. I think that's where we were going recognizing that industry was already trying to create this assurance process through third party assessment.

00:54:46 assessment. Now the report from your meeting which we've just been discussing was discussed by the federation's executive group meeting on the 1st of May 2013. Yes. And if we go to the minutes of that meeting which we find at FSF

00:54:58 meeting which we find at FSF quadruple024

00:55:06 and we can see at the top of the first page on the right hand column uh you sent your apologies but presumably you read the minutes afterwards. I did. Now, if we can go to the bottom of page two, we see the heading Lacnull

00:55:18 of page two, we see the heading Lacnull House update. And there it says Paul Fuller, that's PF, explained that a Laknal House work stream had been agreed and this would be led by Mike Wood to address this address

00:55:29 led by Mike Wood to address this address the specifics from the coroner's letter answering the rule 43 letter and to move the sector forward. MW, that's Mike Wood, noted that the role of the FSF was clearly recognized in the coroner's

00:55:40 clearly recognized in the coroner's letter and that two main areas would be addressed within the workstream. One prime objective is to address the coroner's letter which is likely to be specific around fire risk assessment and

00:55:52 specific around fire risk assessment and high-rise and this is being addressed through a separate work stream headed by Dennis Davis. Two, secondary is to look at the wider issues and systemic failures. Mike Wood

00:56:04 issues and systemic failures. Mike Wood highlighted the sensitive nature and information in the public domain, but would be guided by the coroner's letter and the copy sent to other parties. Can you help us? What were the wider issues

00:56:15 you help us? What were the wider issues and systematic or systemic failures concerning fire risk assessments that the meeting minutes were referring to? I think just below those one one to four, there is some of it. Um the the

00:56:29 four, there is some of it. Um the the deep concern um was that going back to the the built environment and and the building regulations and the process of how um materials were being used. There

00:56:42 how um materials were being used. There was a there was a concern that you could have a product a component and it could be introduced into a u a building and form part of a system. But the coherence

00:56:54 form part of a system. But the coherence of the whole um product to how it's uh actually then installed and used within the system was not necessarily tested as a whole or seen as a whole. So you could

00:57:07 a whole or seen as a whole. So you could mismatch and the performance would would would not work well and and that could only be addressed really um by by approved document B. the the integrated fire safety management really was this

00:57:20 fire safety management really was this ability for an occupier because this is a refurbished building which are often of the greatest concern. Didn't understand the strategy by which that building had been designed and built to

00:57:32 building had been designed and built to meet its fire safety requirements and therefore could do things or not maintain things that needed to be done. that the that the the guidance itself some and particularly some of the

00:57:43 itself some and particularly some of the the built environment guidance was itself difficult to understand particularly for a lay person but some of the technical language as I recall some of our people had debates about

00:57:55 some of our people had debates about what it actually meant. It was interpretation because it was functional. So so there were a few issues. Yes. Now if we turn over the page the bottom of page three um we see

00:58:06 page the bottom of page three um we see workstream chair updates

00:58:11 at the very bottom of the page and we see there PT who I think was Phil toes of BAE commented on the circulated paper from you and suggested there was no requirement to reinvent the wheel with

00:58:22 requirement to reinvent the wheel with the paper providing no mention of existing schemes such as SP 205 by BA. Now first of all what does BAE stand for? British approval for fire equipment, but BA is actually a much

00:58:34 equipment, but BA is actually a much broader organization that that gives approval schemes. UKcast approval schemes. Um, and one of them SP uh 205 is their life safety fire risk

00:58:46 is their life safety fire risk assessment scheme. Basically, that answers my next question. So, thank you. Now if we look over the page at the top of page four we see that AM who's Anthony Maud commented that there was some concern from DCLG on

00:58:58 that there was some concern from DCLG on the criteria and competency council work as it looks like the proposal is to review elements which have only just been agreed following recent discussions. There is concern on the LGA

00:59:09 discussions. There is concern on the LGA work and guidance and DD document mentions reviewing this with DCLG confirming that additional guidance is not required. Then finally at the bottom we have emb in red and emboldened PF so

00:59:22 we have emb in red and emboldened PF so that's Paul Fuller suggested that PT so Phil toes and LC who I think is Louise Craig

00:59:29 Craig and DD IU meet to discuss the paper and suggestions in more detail. Now did you meet uh Mr. Toes or Miss Craig thereafter to discuss your report?

00:59:41 thereafter to discuss your report? You know I I I don't think we did. I can't recall having a meeting or making a note of a meeting. Uh now following on from that, could we look at CLG quadruple0526

00:59:56 look at CLG quadruple0526 on the bottom of page one? Uh there's an email there as we can see dated the 29th of April 2013 timed at 0908

01:00:06 0908 from Louise Upton who was an official in fire safety department at CLG and Brian Martin who was in the building regulations department and Sen Knight

01:00:17 regulations department and Sen Knight as well as copy to others which began thus thanks for sight of this and happy to discuss there are lots of positive here and it seems the FSF are very keen to grasp the opportunity to own and

01:00:29 to grasp the opportunity to own and develop the risk assessor standard. Now, above that email, you'll see one from Brian Martin sent also on the 29th of April, but at 9:36 a.m. And he says,

01:00:40 April, but at 9:36 a.m. And he says, "This looks to me like the FSF is in danger of trying to do more than is necessary, desirable, or within its ability. But I'm always having these negative thoughts, so maybe I'll just

01:00:51 negative thoughts, so maybe I'll just let them get on with it." And then finally at the top of the page we see Saken Knight's response uh which was Brian I agree. Now were you aware of those views at the time communicated

01:01:04 those views at the time communicated either by Mr. Maud or someone else? No, I was not at No, I wasn't. And I wasn't at that meeting, as you say. I said my apologies. I was working abroad um at the time, I think. Um and when I read

01:01:16 the time, I think. Um and when I read the note, I was quite disappointed only in the sense that we'd had a meeting, which to be fair was a relatively small group. I think it was five or six people that initial meeting.

01:01:28 five or six people that initial meeting. Wasn't a big meeting. Um, and we were trying to scope what we thought was going to be necessary to address the issue. And that's what I'd put forward

01:01:40 issue. And that's what I'd put forward to to the executive and to the forum to to get agreed. Um, and clearly that was rejected. It was almost like um we've done all this work. There's no need to

01:01:52 done all this work. There's no need to go over this again. And I can understand why. I mean 2011, but if I can was the end of the frack, wasn't it? They'd only just published the frack. But were you aware of the views? Oh, certainly not of these views.

01:02:04 Oh, certainly not of these views. And had you ever had a conversation with Ken Knight where he No.

01:02:07 No. gave you any grants to believe that's their view. The only the only way I became aware sorry

01:02:15 sorry just let me finish the question. Had you had any discussions with Brian Martin ever?

01:02:19 ever? I've had discussions with Brian Martin but not about this. And he never gave you any impression or gave any indication to believe that they felt you were overreaching put differently.

01:02:32 were overreaching put differently. Not at this time. No. Now if we can turn to the next document in in the same uh email uh chain. It's in a separate document though. CLG quadruple0527.

01:02:50 We see at the bottom of that page, it was a supplementary email that Secen sent following the email exchange we've just looked at and it said this. Just to add, you'll see that the FSF proposed

01:03:02 add, you'll see that the FSF proposed writing to LGA for amendments to the PBF to recognize the FSF role. Now, the PBF was the LGA guide. Um, and if we go to

01:03:13 was the LGA guide. Um, and if we go to the top of this email chain, Mr. Davis, we see Louise Upton replied, "Oh Lordy, let's have a meeting sooner rather than later to see what we can do to steer the FSF away from its worst excesses in

01:03:27 FSF away from its worst excesses in respect of control freakery, i.e. the development of a passport scheme. It seems their intervention is not without risk and we need to think about how we can best manage it." Now, did Louise Upton, Brian Martin, or

01:03:40 Now, did Louise Upton, Brian Martin, or Ken Knight ever speak to you directly regarding the contents of your report? Not that I am aware. No. Did anyone from the department ever have

01:03:51 Did anyone from the department ever have a discussion with you, they may not put as impolitely as that, but about FSF's worst excesses and what they could be referring to here?

01:04:02 referring to here? No. And I think at that time um going back to what we said earlier the support issue was around you know the the idea that we were going to be supported in

01:04:13 that we were going to be supported in our work

01:04:14 our work and the control freakery is that a an allegation uh that had been put to you before?

01:04:21 before? No.

01:04:22 No. Or dressed up in perhaps more polite language?

01:04:25 language? Not that I'm aware of. No. I know I'm positive, but were you ever contacted by anyone uh from the department to discuss the contents of your report?

01:04:37 contents of your report? No.

01:04:40 Uh did you have any substantive discussions with officials from the department or indeed ministers about the proposed amendments for the LGA guide? No.

01:04:50 No. Did you ever seek such discussions? No.

01:04:54 No. Why not? I think we were concentrating on trying to move this agenda forward. Um so I don't think we were at a stage of seeking certainly input to ministers

01:05:05 of seeking certainly input to ministers and certainly if you weren't aware of the

01:05:07 the No, I wasn't aware of this attitude. No. Now can we go back to your first statement which is FSF quadruple03620.

01:05:20 And if we look at paragraph 81, uh you explain that regrettably no decision was made

01:05:33 possibly because the original review was only five persons and this was insufficient to gain a consensus. This meant the process effectively slowed until October 2013.

01:05:44 until October 2013. I think this is what you touched on in earlier answers that your group had perhaps insufficient critical mass in order to reach a sort of a compelling decision that the executive

01:05:55 compelling decision that the executive group would accept. Is that a fair summary?

01:05:58 summary? Yes, it was. But I I equally wasn't aware of course until I read the minutes of the feedback from Anthony Morud about the department's reluctance to go forward. And if we look at paragraph 82

01:06:10 forward. And if we look at paragraph 82 in the same statement, you say that at a competency workshop that was held at if headquarters on the 10th of October 2013,

01:06:19 2013, um it was held to advance the matter. Is that right? Yes, it was. Now, if we look at a draft note of that meeting which can be found at FSF quadruple0407.

01:06:35 We can see from the fourth line at the very top you attended the meeting. Were any of the others there members of your work stream?

01:06:46 your work stream? Well, yes. You you could say this was the work stream as I said that we were organic. If you if you felt you could contribute, you could attend. Uh the note is stated to be in draft. Is

01:06:57 Uh the note is stated to be in draft. Is there any reason to feel that this isn't an accurate summary of the discussion? No, I think it's accurate. it would have been approved at its next at our next meeting.

01:07:06 meeting. Now, what was your plan to build consensus behind the recommendations in your uh report of April 2013? I think I was trying to take the feeling of where we were. Um that we wanted um that the

01:07:21 we were. Um that we wanted um that the the picture that had been given was that we had enough around fire risk assessor competency to go forward. But that the big problem

01:07:32 to go forward. But that the big problem and it was a this is a rationale logic. The big problem was that the responsible persons were very unaware of their responsibilities and therefore didn't

01:07:43 responsibilities and therefore didn't know how and what a competent fire risker might look like and we really needed to move our attention to if you like a communication education process

01:07:54 like a communication education process for that group. Now if we can turn to the second page of this note and it's really under the heading of discussion.

01:08:04 Uh it says this, "Significant debate ensued on the approach any new action might take, noting external constraints such as government's general opposition to regulating business. For example, a

01:08:16 to regulating business. For example, a suggestion for a signing off regime, while desired, was judged impractical, continuing austerity, and the accepted role in many parts of the fire sector of wellestablished national accreditation,

01:08:27 wellestablished national accreditation, qualification, and self-imposed frameworks that build competency frameworks. Looking at the first of those, why was a signing off regime first of all? What

01:08:38 signing off regime first of all? What did it mean? I think we we're back to a mandated scheme.

01:08:44 scheme. Why was it considered impractical? Was it just because government was against it?

01:08:48 it? I think so. And of course, there was industry opposition as well. Now looking further down this page under the heading actions, the second line says this. Endorse a competency strategy that

01:09:00 Endorse a competency strategy that initially focused upon uh improving the role and competency of fire safety managers. Now some of the reasoning for focusing on the narrower question of fire safety competence is set out in the

01:09:13 fire safety competence is set out in the second paragraph under the heading discussion. But can you give the panel a more detailed understanding of why the focus seems to have narrowed more significantly just onto fire safety

01:09:24 significantly just onto fire safety managers and not fire risk assessors more generally? Yes. Well, really restating what what I've been saying the argument was from the people who were actually doing the

01:09:36 the people who were actually doing the work i.e. the people in the schemes um that the definition from frack was and the existence of pass 79 and so on was more than sufficient for a

01:09:48 on was more than sufficient for a competent fire risk assessor competency that I mean the the whole point of competency is knowing what you don't knowing

01:09:57 knowing when to stop and seek further advice and the argument was that that was well enough described by those that criteria and by the methodologies and so on. And

01:10:09 and by the methodologies and so on. And therefore, this wasn't an issue around the people who were in those schemes. This was an issue more about the people who were who had the statutory duty, the

01:10:20 who were who had the statutory duty, the the responsible person. And therefore, we needed to connect the two. Now, was a consequence of narrowing the focus on to fire safety managers that the competency criteria and the LGA guide would not

01:10:33 criteria and the LGA guide would not require amendment? Yes. Yes. In a way, yes. and was another consequence that the FSF would not offer guidance on the scope of fire risk assessments particularly in relation to high-rise residential buildings.

01:10:44 high-rise residential buildings. Yes. Because the the local authority guide existed. Yes. Or how those assessments should be carried out. Yes.

01:10:51 Yes. Now and that was all those consequences were accepted even though there was a specific request from the coroner that the FSF consider fire risk assessor

01:11:03 the FSF consider fire risk assessor competency. Yes. And it was done those decisions were made in knowledge of the coroner's express recommendation. Yes. The the argument was that there was sufficient information within the

01:11:15 sufficient information within the criteria for those judgments to be made that an assessor was competent and even though the coroner had seen and clearly seen the competency criteria of

01:11:26 clearly seen the competency criteria of fire risk assessors and had still considered that further guidance was needed.

01:11:31 needed. Yes. But in the context again that we were looking at the people within the fire sector federation schemes. So so this is one this is one of the

01:11:42 So so this is one this is one of the problems that there's a large group of people who call themselves fire risk assessors who are not part of schemes uh soul traders individuals um out there

01:11:54 uh soul traders individuals um out there who uh would necessarily not be part of our organizations and would not be part of those schemes. And I suppose another consequence of this narrowing of the focus, if I can put it like that, was

01:12:06 focus, if I can put it like that, was that the federation did not seek to clarify the scope of fire risk assessments or offer any further guidance on training of fire risk assessors. Yeah, I think I think that's a a fair

01:12:17 Yeah, I think I think that's a a fair summary because we were we were pointing we in a way what we were saying is there is a competent group of fire risk assessors. They're within these schemes. But again that decision was made knowing

01:12:30 But again that decision was made knowing and in full knowledge of the coroner had made recommendations on those topics. Yes. But the argument was in this logic point the responsible person

01:12:43 point the responsible person to the people who are competent and away from those who are not competent. Now if we could look at the federation's response to the coroner um

01:12:54 federation's response to the coroner um that was sent on the 20th of May 2013 and so it's a FSF quadruple 045

01:13:04 and so this is sent 5 months before the meeting in October 2013 which we've just disc which we've just discussed. Now take it from me the letters signed by Paul Fuller who was a deputy

01:13:15 by Paul Fuller who was a deputy chairman. Did you help draft the letter or in any way involved in its drafting? I'm sure I must have been um either from the minutes that we've talked about or something like that.

01:13:26 something like that. Now, if we look at the first page uh and really the bottom of this first page, it says this. In the first instance, we are focusing on the immediate questions of competency and effectiveness in carrying

01:13:37 competency and effectiveness in carrying out fire risk assessments. Further work will gradually expand the area of federation scrutiny to include other aspects of concern expressed in the narratives from the jury and the issues

01:13:48 narratives from the jury and the issues highlighted in your summing up. And if we go to the top of the second page, paragraph one says this. To date, we have initiated the following actions.

01:13:59 have initiated the following actions. One, formation of a new work stream within the federation to concentrate on relevant aspects of competency development, accreditation and training in fire safety. This will seek to build

01:14:10 in fire safety. This will seek to build on the excellent foundations prepared by the national fire risk assessment competency council and to extend that work into the wider aspects of professional competency in fire safety

01:14:21 professional competency in fire safety on a I think you mean on a principled basis.

01:14:24 basis. Now the reference to new workstream was presumably your work stream. Yes, Paratu goes on to say this. The National Social Housing Fire Safety Group in conjunction with the fire protection

01:14:35 conjunction with the fire protection association, chief fire officers association and skills for justice is well advanced in the development of qualifications for fire risk assessers as a basis for the training of housing and estate management staff. These are

01:14:48 and estate management staff. These are based upon the national occupational standards in fire safety. We will also review this approach to see if it can be adapted and used as an exemplar and encourage its adoption in other parts of the fire safety sector. Now, what

01:15:00 the fire safety sector. Now, what qualifications for fire risk assessors were developed for the training of housing and estate management staff? I'm not sure because that work was taken away by another individual um to

01:15:11 away by another individual um to actually get and they were using the national occupational standards which had been established I think as part of the enforcement process. uh was the federation did have any involvement in

01:15:22 federation did have any involvement in the development of that particular qualification although you may not know about it. Do you know whether the federation had a role in it? I don't I don't um did the federation review that

01:15:33 um did the federation review that qualification to see if it could be adapted and used as an exempller in the context of fire risk assessment? No, we certainly the group I was leading didn't know. Uh, can you explain why you

01:15:45 didn't know. Uh, can you explain why you didn't look at that given the reference in this letter? No, I can't. I I I just feel that that was probably a piece of work had been taken away um by the social housing

01:15:58 taken away um by the social housing group to look at it in their context using national occupational standards. Did the federation work with the national social housing fire safety group at all in relation to fire risk

01:16:09 group at all in relation to fire risk assessment? I had I had um discussions certainly with with one or two of their people. Um but when you say work, I don't I don't

01:16:20 but when you say work, I don't I don't think there was any formal work. Nothing beyond sort of informal chats. No. And I I can I can remember when when when I was looking at criteria and so on and discussing things and and trying to

01:16:31 and discussing things and and trying to be helpful and and see how that might help them. Thank you. Um so I'm slightly mindful of the time. Um, this might be a time for a short break. Um, I am

01:16:43 Um, I am You're partway through a topic or I'm partway through, but I think it's Yeah, take it take a break while we can. You mean

01:16:51 You mean I think so. Well, there it is, Mr. Davis. We have a break during each session, and this is obviously as good a time as any to take this afternoon's break. We'll stop now. We'll resume, please, at half three.

01:17:02 We'll resume, please, at half three. Okay.

01:17:03 Okay. And while you're out of the room, please don't talk to anyone about it. Of course. All right. Thank you.

01:17:17 Thank you for Thanks.

01:34:13 Would

01:34:26 you ask Mr. Davis to come back in, please?

01:34:38 Yes. Right. Please sit down, Mr. Davis. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry we kept you waiting a little longer than I'd indicated, but there we are. Ready? We're ready to go on. Are you ready to go on? Yes, I'm ready to go.

01:34:49 Yes, I'm ready to go. Good. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cle. Thanks. So, uh, could we now turn to the second letter that the federation sent to the coroner, and this one was dated the 11th of December, 2013, and we can find that at hom48208.

01:35:04 Uh, this letter was sent two months after the October meeting at which it was decided to focus on fire safety manager competence. Um, it was signed by Brian Robinson. Did you contribute to

01:35:15 Brian Robinson. Did you contribute to the draft? No, I don't think I did. Did you see it before it was sent? No.

01:35:20 No. Now, at the bottom of the first page, the coroner is given an update about the work stream in the following terms. The core competency workstream has continued its work drawing on contributions from

01:35:31 its work drawing on contributions from several parties across the sector. There is a clear realization that this subject underpins all aspects of the fire safety chain. We have referred to extending the scope originally defined by the fire

01:35:42 scope originally defined by the fire risk assessment competency council applying specifically to fire risk assessments under the fire safety order 2005. Um it's not wholly clear. But what precise point was the letter seeking to

01:35:54 precise point was the letter seeking to make there? I'm not that clear uh myself. No, I'm not. Um I I think it probably reflects that scoping uh item that we

01:36:07 reflects that scoping uh item that we talked about. Um, I think that might be what it's reflecting. Now, the letter does not say that a decision had been made not to revise the LGA guide. Is that right?

01:36:18 LGA guide. Is that right? I don't know. Can you Well, you can take it from me. It doesn't say that. Okay. Do you know why it doesn't say that? No.

01:36:24 No. The letter does not say that a decision had been made not to revise the competency criteria. Do you know why that

01:36:33 that those were both significant and material emissions about which the coroner should have been informed? Would you agree? I agree.

01:36:40 agree. Can we now turn to the competency criteria for fire risk managers? Uh now first of all, what is a fire risk manager?

01:36:47 manager? Well, it's the person who's responsible within a building for ensuring the maintenance and compliance with the statutory requirements for general fire safety and that would include uh the duties of a responsible manager. Now

01:37:00 duties of a responsible manager. Now there was a meeting of the fire risk management competency council on the 14th of April 2014 at the LFB headquarters which you attended. Um can we go to the minutes which are are at

01:37:12 we go to the minutes which are are at FSF quadruple0550.

01:37:21 Now we can see uh that you attended. You're roughly halfway down just below halfway down the list of attendees. Now on the second page under paragraph 4

01:37:32 on the second page under paragraph 4 there are a series of bullet points described as areas noted by attendees. And if I can just go through them. First the need for the responsible person to

01:37:43 the need for the responsible person to recognize their role as either the fire risk manager or as the person appointing an appropriate competent fire risk manager. Second, the fact that a person appointed as an FRM may have a plethora

01:37:56 appointed as an FRM may have a plethora of other duties within an organization. Thirdly, concern over the wide variation in the competency of fire risk managers and that third party certification was

01:38:08 and that third party certification was often seen as an unnecessary expense. Fourthly, concern that fire risk assessments were often commissioned on price rather than quality. Fifthly,

01:38:20 price rather than quality. Fifthly, concern that many organizations were so large and complex that was little coordination of the disperate elements that compromise or the fire safety uh portfolio. And finally, concern that the

01:38:32 portfolio. And finally, concern that the needs of those with disabilities were often overlooked in fire safety management. Now, did you share any or all of those concerns at the time of the meeting in April 2014?

01:38:44 meeting in April 2014? Yes, I would have shared most of those. To the best of your knowledge, were any of those concerns shared with government either officials or ministers at the time?

01:38:55 time? I don't I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. Were these concerns considered more pressing than those relating to fire risk assessor competency? I think they were and that was the

01:39:06 I think they were and that was the change in direction and hence the focus on fire risk managers.

01:39:11 managers. What in particular had happened to cause that focus to shift? I think going back to what we said previously that there was sufficient detail around to identify what a competent fire risk assessor

01:39:24 what a competent fire risk assessor would look like. But there was still this concern and I think one of the works that we did was a matrix of understanding about fire safety amongst duty holders, responsible persons and

01:39:36 duty holders, responsible persons and this was the sort of concern now being documented. Now, am I right that the discussion at this meeting in April 2014 led to the publication of the competency

01:39:47 led to the publication of the competency criteria for fire risk managers that was published in October 2015? Yes, I think that was the outcome. Yes. Now, we can go to that document which is which is at FSF quadruple041.

01:40:06 Was there a principal author of that document or was it a collaborative effort?

01:40:11 effort? I think it was I wasn't directly involved in the collaboration to produce this document but I think the principal author was uh a leader from the fire brigade union. Now if we look at page

01:40:22 brigade union. Now if we look at page three

01:40:24 three uh we can see under the second paragraph it says this. The value of a competency standard for fire risk assessors is limited if those in authority fire risk

01:40:35 limited if those in authority fire risk managers fail to seek out competent fire risk assesses. If they fail to ensure they themselves have the requisite competencies, if they are undertaking the assessment personally, fail to

01:40:46 the assessment personally, fail to appoint competent contractors to implement the findings of a fire risk assessment, or fail to examine the quality of fire protection systems. Now, were the specific failings considered

01:40:57 were the specific failings considered here by the federation considered to be widespread? Yes, I think so. And if we go to the fifth paragraph on the same page, the fire sector federation recognized that having

01:41:08 federation recognized that having established the competency council and published competency criteria for fire risk assessors, the next logical step is to consider competency criteria for those actively engaged in fire risk

01:41:19 those actively engaged in fire risk management. Within this, it seems prudent to consider the discipline specific competencies of those who audit fire risk management systems, including those who may engage in the audit and

01:41:30 those who may engage in the audit and certification process. Should an organization seek third party certification of their fire risk management system, appropriate conformity at astation arrangements are described in Beniso

01:41:44 described in Beniso C117021.

01:41:47 Now that was a long runup to a short question. Um, how was this document intended to be used by the responsible person?

01:41:54 person? It well it was intended to guide them as to their competency to assist them make the right selection in terms of carrying out their duties.

01:42:05 out their duties. If we look at the sixth paragraph on this page, it says this. While it is very unlikely that third-party certification of this nature will become mandatory under legislation, government acknowledges the benefits of third-party

01:42:17 acknowledges the benefits of third-party certification and is now recognized that this includes fire risk management system certification. Was the content of this document discussed with DCLG or were they consulted upon its substance?

01:42:30 consulted upon its substance? I don't know is but they they would have been aware. But you weren't directly involved in No. No.

01:42:39 No. No. Can you help us? Why was it considered unlikely that third party certification would become mandatory under legislation? I think going back to some of those earlier insights that you provided me,

01:42:52 earlier insights that you provided me, um there was a reluctance for any form of additional uh mandatory controls on business. Um red tape, those sorts of arguments were around at the time. So irrespective of

01:43:04 around at the time. So irrespective of what trade was actually saying yes

01:43:06 yes there was that uh reluctance to regulate. I mean fire safety is often perceived as a burden

01:43:14 a burden an addition and you know and therefore trying to sort of promote it would naturally run you into those sort of arguments.

01:43:27 Did that government reluctance uh cause you or the group more generally any concern that it would not be able effectively to remedy the widespread failings the document identified in its

01:43:39 failings the document identified in its forward?

01:43:43 Yes, I think it did. I mean our concern was that we were producing some guidance which was quite difficult for us to produce because of limited

01:43:54 for us to produce because of limited resource and so on but but that if there wasn't sufficient push and support from government for these things it became very difficult for it to a achieve

01:44:05 very difficult for it to a achieve recognition and support as a necessary requirement in business. So it's a chicken and an egg in one sense. You

01:44:16 chicken and an egg in one sense. You know, you ask the sector, the sector produces guidance. But if there's a no promotion of that need, then really the two things, they just exist, but they don't actually promote the thing you're

01:44:28 don't actually promote the thing you're trying to achieve. Fire safety and indeed the objective can be thwarted because there's notive coordination. Absolutely. Can we turn in this document to page 10 and it's appendix A which

01:44:40 to page 10 and it's appendix A which sets out principles and practice of fire risk management and we see there if we look at the six bullet point for example fire risk manager will understand the basic principles of fire protection in

01:44:52 basic principles of fire protection in buildings eg early warning and means of escape compartmentation and fire service access provision. Now presumably uh these requirements here were

01:45:03 uh these requirements here were considered to be both basic necessary and desirable. Is that right? Absolutely. Yes. Yes. What who was the intended readership of this document? Was it confined to the responsible persons or was it hoped that

01:45:15 responsible persons or was it hoped that it would attract a broader readership? Broader. Broader. I mean the responsible person is the point the person appointed in law but obviously in a large building or or somebody with a big portfolio of

01:45:26 or or somebody with a big portfolio of buildings you know a social landlord they they they would appoint other persons to carry out their functionalities. So you know just the way you might have an engineer responsible for looking after your

01:45:37 responsible for looking after your energy systems and so on some some would appoint specific people to look after these sorts of responsibilities the same as you would under the health and safety at work act for example.

01:45:48 at work act for example. And how was it intended that these criteria would be published so that not only responsible persons but the hoped for broader readership would get hold of them.

01:45:57 them. I I think that's the the Achilles heel. Um, one one of my concerns and I voiced this publicly a number of times. We is that we were doing a lot of talking to

01:46:09 that we were doing a lot of talking to ourself.

01:46:10 ourself. you know, we were very informed, but we were talking an awful lot to ourself and that initial enthusiasm that you mentioned and the support and so on um

01:46:21 mentioned and the support and so on um had waned

01:46:23 had waned and somehow um and I think I saw this in not today but in other commentary in the inquiry there was almost a sense that we'd become not a problem but

01:46:37 well not a burden even but we had an identified position and I've heard people in evidence call call us a lobbyist lobby group or and we weren't you know I mean we certainly weren't trying to be that. Why do you think

01:46:49 trying to be that. Why do you think support waned and when would you identify if you can when that support started uh to diminish? I think it's I think it was around the

01:47:01 I think it's I think it was around the fact that expertise in government was reducing the the people the numbers were reducing. I think I there was a background of complacency

01:47:13 there was a background of complacency in one sense which was drawn out of the fact that fire deaths were pretty stable. Um community action programs by the fire foreign rescue service and so

01:47:24 the fire foreign rescue service and so on had had a a really good effect. um there'd been no uh serious sort of issues arising. So therefore the perception maybe politically was

01:47:36 the perception maybe politically was that uh fire was under control. um the government was reducing a smaller government as I mentioned earlier so and expertise was maybe reducing so the

01:47:48 expertise was maybe reducing so the enthusiasm the the reason detra starts to evaporate a little bit now we're seven years on or near as damn it from publication of this document

01:47:59 from publication of this document have you been able to judge how effective the criteria have been in raising standards of knowledge and competency of fire risk managers

01:48:10 No, I I we we haven't we haven't audited or we haven't got the capacity to to do an audit like that. Do you have any anecdotal sense? If you

01:48:21 Do you have any anecdotal sense? If you don't then please the anecdotal sense is one that you would perhaps recognize in other areas. It's that responsible companies, good companies if I use that general

01:48:33 good companies if I use that general word, do these things and take this sort of information and build it into their systems. But the the consequence of that, of course, is you're you're then

01:48:44 that, of course, is you're you're then trying to say, well, how many are responsible and good and trying very hard to do the right thing and how many are just

01:48:49 are just not.

01:48:50 not. Yes. And that and that's very difficult to gauge, I would say. Now can I turn to a separate topic which is the BRE report that was commissioned by LFIPA on the 2005 order. Now if we can go to it it's

01:49:03 2005 order. Now if we can go to it it's LFB046812.

01:49:14 You can see from its title page that it's called a study into the experience and the operation of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 in London final report and we can see it's dated

01:49:27 final report and we can see it's dated the 9th of September 2015. Now the report was prepared for the London fire and emergency planning authority by BRE Global. Um first of all have you seen this before?

01:49:38 this before? I don't think I have. I don't think so. It may well have been uh discussed at a meeting um of the FSF forum in January

01:49:50 meeting um of the FSF forum in January 2015 when Martin Ship I think was of BR um said that the BR had commissioned had been commissioned by the LFB and he'd emailed it but it doesn't strike you.

01:50:01 emailed it but it doesn't strike you. I I just don't recall it. I mean I I apologize but I read thousands of documents. I it just doesn't jump out at the moment. Don't worry. Now, if we can go um into the report itself and we go to the

01:50:12 the report itself and we go to the bottom of page 85 and it's in a section entitled recommendations.

01:50:21 Um we can see at the very bottom of the page emboldened in sort of light blue um is the title additional tools or competencies and the bullet point reads thus there is a need for greater

01:50:32 thus there is a need for greater emphasis on good management rather than on the form filling of the risk assessment. the risk assessment informs management and is important for auditing but is not an end in itself. Did you

01:50:43 but is not an end in itself. Did you agree with that statement or would that reflect your views in 2015? Yeah, I think that I think that's a fair statement. If we turn over the page and look at the top of page 86, the next bullet point reads as follows.

01:50:55 the next bullet point reads as follows. There is a widely held view that a widely recognized and preferable government endorsed national accredited competency scheme is needed for fire safety risk assessors and fire risk

01:51:06 safety risk assessors and fire risk auditors similar to the gas safe register. Again, would you agree with that observation? Yes.

01:51:14 Yes. The relevance of the gas safe register was that it was and remains mandatory. Is that right? Yes. Yes. It's back to myote.

01:51:25 Do you remember this report prompting any further consideration uh within the federation? I think it it it renewed my energy um with a colleague from the Institution of

01:51:36 with a colleague from the Institution of Fire Engineers. So you think you did you did receive this at the time in late 2015? I possibly didn't possibly read it, but I think we were still

01:51:47 I think we were still I use the expression gnoring at a bone. Um

01:51:51 Um but it just so I can understand were you aware

01:51:56 aware of the thrust of this report in the last quarter of 2015 or soon thereafter

01:52:04 if you can't say either way I can't I can't say either way. Okay.

01:52:07 Okay. Yeah.

01:52:08 Yeah. Can I turn therefore on to a separate issue which is the license to practice proposal that was made in 2016. Yes. Now you prepared a strategy note for the workstream um which we can find

01:52:20 for the workstream um which we can find at FSF quadruple0420

01:52:30 and we can see that at the bottom of page it's dated the 26th of January 2016 and was uh co-written with a Neil Gibbons. Who is Neil Gibbons?

01:52:41 Gibbons. Who is Neil Gibbons? He was the acting chief exec at the time of the Institution of Fire Engineers. Thank you. And if we look at the first and second paragraphs on this page, uh they say this. A series of three meetings between the

01:52:52 A series of three meetings between the workstream leaders for competency and accreditation and workforce development have been held and the following suggestions and decisions for action have emerged and are placed before members for consideration under the

01:53:04 members for consideration under the heading consolidation. Activity in both work streams has not been as anticipated. Initial enthusiasm in enthusiasm in issues around competency has wavered and the workforce

01:53:15 has wavered and the workforce development activity has been virtually non-existence. What particular activity had not happened as anticipated? The workforce u work stream hadn't

01:53:26 The workforce u work stream hadn't really got going is the short and long of that

01:53:29 of that through lack of impetus. Yes. It just didn't get going. Yeah. Why had enthusiasm wavered around the competency and uh workforce development activity? I I think what was what's

01:53:41 activity? I I think what was what's being said here is that we were looking originally discreetly in two groups workforce competency workforce comp and the fire risk assessment process competency and you can see that the the

01:53:53 competency and you can see that the the one affects the other the workforce can you help us why enthusiasm had wavered was it just progress had been more elusive than had originally been hoped and had the knock-on effect of

01:54:04 hoped and had the knock-on effect of people feeling less enthusiastic I think that's a very good way of putting it it just hadn't happened. Okay. Now, as set out under decision one, um there's a under the same

01:54:16 one, um there's a under the same paragraph, it says that the plan was to develop a new work stream to consolidate competency and accreditation with workforce development. Um in brief, what was workforce development?

01:54:28 was workforce development? It was about looking at the uh the terms of reference. We're looking about how we developed across the cross sector interest not just fire risk assessors generally the workforce. It excluded

01:54:39 generally the workforce. It excluded particularly uh conditions of service which was seen as outside the remit of the fire sector federation that was an employers issue and so how would that plan infuse or add

01:54:50 and so how would that plan infuse or add impetus to the work streams because that's where training would be done and so on. Now turning to the section headed conceptual design which is further down this page. Um the second paragraph says this. It is suggested

01:55:02 paragraph says this. It is suggested that the concept should include a federationowned license to practice. The license effectively would offer recognition across the sector to the public and all commissioners of work

01:55:13 public and all commissioners of work that the license holder is competent to perform appropriate tasks. Um can you help us why was a federationowned license to practice scheme proposed? Returning to the theme uh that we

01:55:25 Returning to the theme uh that we couldn't have mandate at the moment. If we could introduce our own scheme, a license to practice scheme, it would give massive reassurance to the public that they were getting competent people

01:55:38 that they were getting competent people to do their jobs. And was it intended that fire risk assessors would be caught? Yes, very much so. It seems in its essence the same as the 2013 passport scheme. Is that a fair

01:55:50 2013 passport scheme. Is that a fair observation? That is a very fair observation and it was presumably proposed because you remain concerned about the quality of risk assessments and competency of risk assessors. Absolutely. I was being persistent.

01:56:02 Absolutely. I was being persistent. And had the noise to use your word continued over the years in relation to competency of our risk assesses. Now, if we can go to your first witness statement, which is at FSF quadruple

01:56:15 statement, which is at FSF quadruple 036/23,

01:56:25 if we look at paragraph 91, and you're answering here a question about the UK uh fire competency registration uh scheme, and you explained that the FSF recognized the

01:56:37 explained that the FSF recognized the inherent diversity in the fire sector, challenged cohesion and collaboration and judged it was unacceptable to have incompetent persons fulfilling key roles that impact directly on fire safety.

01:56:51 that impact directly on fire safety. Who were the incompetent persons fulfilling key roles that impact directly on fire safety? I was thinking there particularly of fire risk assessors who weren't part of schemes.

01:57:07 How do you address were there any was there any new thinking about how to address that particular potential regulatory gap by forming a register which would

01:57:18 by forming a register which would require people then to enter into either voluntary or however it was done if there was no mandate into a scheme and to get um the market the users to

01:57:30 to get um the market the users to recognize that there was a license to practice so that they would put pressure from their perspective that the only people who would find that sort of employment would be licensed people.

01:57:41 employment would be licensed people. Now following on from that in July 2016 you circulated a further paper which recommended a uh registration scheme for fire risk assessors. Now that draft proposal is at FSF quadruple0434.

01:58:01 If we look at the second paragraph under the heading purpose, it said this. This registration scheme is designed to assist all those seeking services within the fire sector to find suitable

01:58:13 the fire sector to find suitable competent persons. The providers of those services have sought to ensure those registered are credible and competent in the area of work indicated and obligated to avoid poor practice and

01:58:24 and obligated to avoid poor practice and offer redress in case of dissatisfaction. Now again that purpose is basically same as the scheme you proposed back in April 2013 isn't it? Yes.

01:58:33 Yes. If we go to page two

01:58:39 uh we see the following first two paragraphs. One schemes determined to have shown suitable standards of quality assurance and professional management may be registered by a twoth3 majority

01:58:50 may be registered by a twoth3 majority vote of the council. Two, the standards of acceptance will be determined by the council and must either meet the UKcast standard or be recognized as of equivalence providing suitable quality

01:59:03 equivalence providing suitable quality assurance processes. And again, was that intended to apply to fire risk assessors? Yes.

01:59:08 Yes. Is it right that the draft crystallized into a final report which was circulated in October 2016? I think that's correct. Yes. And if we can go to that final report, it's at hom43195.

01:59:28 Uh we see it's entitled the UK fire competency registration scheme. It's dated the 6th of October 2016. Uh it's you can take it from me. It's signed by you. Uh were you the principal author?

01:59:40 you. Uh were you the principal author? Yes, I would be. Now if we uh look at the heading background paragraph one says this. Last July draft competency scheme that proposed to seek to assure

01:59:51 scheme that proposed to seek to assure the safety of people from fire by ensuring that services registered within the scheme are provided by competent suppliers and to assist those seeking the supply of services identify competent suppliers agreed by competency

02:00:05 competent suppliers agreed by competency WG members. What's WG working group working group members was circulated and feedback has generally been positive. This now raises detailed and difficult matters of asserting quality and

02:00:16 matters of asserting quality and implementation and this note seeks to suggest a process. What precisely did you mean by difficult matters of asserting quality and implementation? The practicality of

02:00:29 and implementation? The practicality of establishing a governance a control mechanism. you're dealing with a diverse group of suppliers. Um, UKCAST might be the accredititation body, but the schemes as we know there was a

02:00:41 schemes as we know there was a who's going to manage it. Yeah, basically. Yes. So, just following on that point, if we turn to page two and if we look at the heading implementation, uh, the top at the head of the page, the

02:00:52 uh, the top at the head of the page, the report said this. Although the process outlined can be debated, the essential underpinning action if FSF is convinced that users need a simplified access route to competent companies and persons

02:01:04 route to competent companies and persons is for FSF to act positively and start a UK fire sector scheme. Now, first of all, who did you intend to be responsible for administering and implementing the scheme?

02:01:15 implementing the scheme? I think that was one of the difficult ma matters that we were talking about managing because it would need resourcing and so on. you posed the question but you didn't necessarily have the answer. I had one in my uh back pocket

02:01:27 I had one in my uh back pocket which was

02:01:28 which was well I I proposed I think in a later document that if and BA who were two of the big leaders in the in this area would help um get the show on the on the road.

02:01:41 on the on the road. What were the consequences though for fire risk assessors who were not registered under a certification scheme? They would simply be beyond regulation would they? They yes because without a mandate

02:01:53 mandate that could not happen that's this but at least as a responsible sector we would have done what we could do to make it happen.

02:02:04 happen. Can you remember now to whom this document was circulated back in October 2016?

02:02:09 2016? It would have gone around the entire um fire sector federation. If you can give the panel the gist of the the response it received. Lots of murmurss. I mean the problem

02:02:21 Lots of murmurss. I mean the problem when these sort of documents go forward to a forum the principal decision-m um or prior to that the executive the executive there was often a short executive before a

02:02:32 was often a short executive before a forum so the executive could comment before it. um was that it sounded like a good idea, but so qualified positive reaction would that be a fair

02:02:43 that be a fair they could see the need. They recognized it probably was a good answer, a good a good way of dealing with it, but realized there was a lot of probably difficult decisions to be made to try

02:02:55 difficult decisions to be made to try and make it happen. Did you get any feedback from government? No.

02:03:02 No. Can we go to your first statement which is at FSF quadruple036/23

02:03:15 and in paragraph 92 uh you say following an internal conference between BA if ASFP who are they association of spec specialist fire protection fire

02:03:27 specialist fire protection fire protection association in 2016. The proposal referred to was substituted with a proposal suggesting an online search facility that would allow members of the public to find

02:03:39 allow members of the public to find existing third-party accredited suppliers in the local area through a search. So presumably that meeting was held

02:03:48 held uh after the publication of your October 2016 report. Yes.

02:03:55 Yes. Why was your and I'm going to put this bluntly. Why was your proposal jettisoned in favor of an online search facility?

02:04:01 facility? Because I think primarily there were deep concerns about liability. Can you flesh out what those concerns might be? My understanding was that if if we operated a scheme such as I was

02:04:13 if we operated a scheme such as I was proposing that if there was then a failure, someone let the side down, uh then there were were certainly responsibilities in law maybe that would

02:04:24 responsibilities in law maybe that would attract to the federation and the federation was not really able to manage that sort of responsibility. And were those concerns regarding potential legal liability? Were they the subject of any legal advice or was it

02:04:36 subject of any legal advice or was it lay people's apprehension of where liability may lie? The second um how would an online search facility address the concerns that have been raised about incompetent persons

02:04:48 raised about incompetent persons fulfilling key roles that impact directly on fire safety? The problem is they wouldn't, would they? Well, it's a halfway house. Is it even that though? Well, you would

02:04:59 Is it even that though? Well, you would still be at least assisting the public find

02:05:03 find accredited people under the UKcast schemes and under the if registered scheme, but when the concern had been incompetent persons fulfilling key roles, it would do nothing to alleviate

02:05:15 roles, it would do nothing to alleviate that problem, would it? Well, it would if you were directing them to accredited people. the the the problem is without it being widespread and

02:05:26 without it being widespread and recognized and badges attached to it or however you see it's like gas safe I think is the example that most people use um then you had to get have a big

02:05:37 use um then you had to get have a big commun communication exercise to get the duty holders to understand that it existed.

02:05:45 existed. Now did you ask for any assistance from government whether in terms of educating responsible persons and relevant people involved in fire safety or more pertinently in respect of money to

02:05:56 pertinently in respect of money to administer any accredititation scheme that might be proposed? No. No. And I think part of the reason for that is it it it wasn't getting off the ground. And I think we've already

02:06:07 the ground. And I think we've already covered the the point that our um support seemed to have be waning and the momentum had been lost in short.

02:06:18 and the momentum had been lost in short. Yes, I think so. Did the fact that the government um have a reluctance to regulate uh inform did it inhibit any approaches to

02:06:29 did it inhibit any approaches to government to ask for support particularly in relation to financial support?

02:06:36 I think you become sensitive to the environment you're in and and in the early days as you've seen um proposals were made they were rejected changed we

02:06:48 were made they were rejected changed we altered kept trying really to improve the situation but that negativity does feed back I mean letters had been written on other subjects we haven't touched on them here you know building regs and so on and that there was a sort

02:07:01 regs and so on and that there was a sort of a negativity um exist existing. So, so that does create that sort of environment. Yes. Could we go to the next document I'd like to discuss with you which is a FSF

02:07:12 like to discuss with you which is a FSF quadruple 0440.

02:07:22 It's another one of your reports. Uh Mr. Davis, uh you prepared this in May 2017, I think. And in the first paragraph, you write this. I am unaware of any progress following last December's BAFE if ASFP

02:07:36 following last December's BAFE if ASFP FPA telephone conference agreement to create an online search capability to find existing third party accredited suppliers an amendment of the competency strategy. It is however suggested to

02:07:48 strategy. It is however suggested to members that they met to consider developing a curriculum to support competency criteria. The criterion process would follow the successful approach used to establish the fire risk assessors competency council. Um why had

02:08:01 assessors competency council. Um why had no progress been made between October or rather December 2016 and May 2017? I think for the reason I said before primarily a reluctance of and a concern

02:08:12 primarily a reluctance of and a concern around liability and what benefits would a curriculum have brought as opposed to frankly a register.

02:08:21 register. I was trying to refresh Um we were a few years on now from Fracks being developed. 2011 was the original Fracks. So it was a question of looking at these things again.

02:08:33 things again. Did you think to what extent could Frack be said to have been successful given that there were persisting concerns regarding the competency of fire risk assesses? I think FRA was very

02:08:45 assesses? I think FRA was very successful and in fact when we updated um the documents as we did subsequently in 2018 and so on um post post Grill Tower fire um FRA was still seen as a an

02:08:58 Tower fire um FRA was still seen as a an important relative document. So it had I think spawned work. Um there were certification bodies under the

02:09:09 certification bodies under the regulatory u qualifications framework who were starting to look at levels of assessments. That's just the certificate. The problem the problem with um

02:09:21 with um with competency is you're looking at skills, experience, behavior and knowledge. And a certificate often only gives you the knowledge component. So but they but it had it had started to

02:09:33 but they but it had it had started to spawn that sort of uh effort. So it was successful in in developing the profession. Now could we turn to your second witness statement which is at which is at FSF quadruple0552

02:09:47 which is at FSF quadruple0552 and if we can go to page four paragraph 21

02:09:52 21 and you explain there in the first line that a separate page of advice and information regarding fire risk assessment was created on the fire sector federation website and this includes from February 2021 a national

02:10:05 includes from February 2021 a national listing of fire risk assessors drawn from established professional registers. Now what professional registers uh feature on that website? If the UKcast schemes, the Warrington,

02:10:16 If the UKcast schemes, the Warrington, which is Warrington and BA, um the ISF given that the proposal was first made in December 2016. Why did it take nearly 5 years to implement?

02:10:28 5 years to implement? Because I think of the reluctance and the concerns going through. Um did government help in any way, funding or any other resource? Was government help asked for?

02:10:40 government help asked for? No.

02:10:41 No. Uh, how is the website funded? We just do it. The federation and you manage and update the website personally. Yes. Um, have you received any feedback or

02:10:52 Um, have you received any feedback or conducted any review as to the effectiveness of this website resource in addressing the problems that you've consistently identified um since 2010 if

02:11:03 consistently identified um since 2010 if not before? it's used and I can measure that a degree of that from the number of visits

02:11:12 but it only goes so far. Yes. In resolving the issue of confidence. Yes, it does. Um could I turn to the next topic which is a home office request that was sent in February 2017.

02:11:24 in February 2017. And if we can uh start with CLG01 9385.

02:11:38 And if we see at the bottom of this page, there is an email from Louise Upton regarding a uh Federation meeting on the 9th of February 2017. Um you didn't attend that meeting. Take it from

02:11:49 didn't attend that meeting. Take it from me. Um, if we look at page two,

02:11:55 uh, the second bullet point in the email says as follows. The FSF think the FSO guidance is inadequate and plan to write to the home office with the offer to take on the task of revising it. Um,

02:12:08 take on the task of revising it. Um, was there a concern within the federation at the time regarding the adequacy or sufficiency of the FSO guidance?

02:12:17 guidance? I'm really having to think about that because I'm not too sure which guidance she's referring to. But do you remember any concerns about the advice that was published by

02:12:29 the advice that was published by government regarding the order and how best to comply? Certainly the DCL guides, certainly the simple premise guides. I think people

02:12:40 simple premise guides. I think people still regarded them as satisfactory. Um,

02:12:45 Um, you don't remember or certainly you weren't involved in the making of any offer to take on the task of revising guidance?

02:12:52 guidance? No, no, no. Not that I'm aware of. No. Um,

02:12:58 Um, final topic I'd like to discuss with you today is other sort of actions arising from Lacnull. And if we go back to the FSF's reply to the coroner, which is a FSF quadruple 045.

02:13:17 And if we can look at the third bullet point on page two

02:13:23 uh that discusses uh working with the department to consider how the federation can provide support in the review um possible amendment of approved document B. Um do you know whether any

02:13:36 document B. Um do you know whether any work was done by the federation uh to assist the department in those respects? I think I mentioned at the beginning that um

02:13:47 that um the relationship between a fire risk assessor who is inside the building primarily and the outside of the building the construction of the building is a very very important one and the outside the structure of the building the the arrangements rest

02:13:59 building the the arrangements rest really with the building regulations and we were really concerned that the regulations were getting completely out of date. I mean really concerned to the point and and I think you covered this

02:14:11 point and and I think you covered this yesterday maybe um or even we were about to launch a really major comp campaign about updating the building regulations ADB. We we were

02:14:24 building regulations ADB. We we were deeply concerned that it was getting beyond a joke. It was really falling so far behind. And do you know who had responsibility for for that work at the federation? Was

02:14:35 for for that work at the federation? Was it you or was it someone else? Oh, no, it wasn't me. It was um it was Tom Roach, I think, led the the built environment uh work stream. Yes. Now, if we look at the fourth bullet point, which is at the bottom of this

02:14:46 point, which is at the bottom of this page, um can you assist us with the awareness and publicity program seeking to raise the profile of fire safety that was to be or had been undertaken by the federation? Um what's been talked about

02:14:59 federation? Um what's been talked about there? Well, we we did have um we we did we did have a a press media uh part-timer who assorted sort assisted us and I think what we were trying to do

02:15:11 and I think what we were trying to do was to to try and push forward this idea um of getting this profile really out there because I've mentioned complacency and the fact that that people were not

02:15:22 and the fact that that people were not paying sufficient attention to fire safety and we that sense was one of foroding you know I mean we a lot of People were getting very concerned at fires that were happening of things that

02:15:33 fires that were happening of things that didn't seem to be connecting that the fact the regulations were difficult to interpret. I seem to remember one of the documents I glanced out 45 ways of improving just the language of

02:15:46 ways of improving just the language of the of the ADB. So it was all about that and it was just you remember I said we were doing a lot of talking to ourselves. I think we'd reached the point of this has really got to go out.

02:15:58 point of this has really got to go out. you know, we've really got to start to engage a much wider group because no one no one is listening. We our principal route to try and get messages through had been being right through the APG.

02:16:10 had been being right through the APG. That was one of our main connections. We we were the technical advisers, Brian Robinson, people like that were the technical advisers. So, we were when we couldn't advance with officials,

02:16:21 couldn't advance with officials, you end up politicizing the process to at least try and make something happen. and and I think this was all part of that process. Now turning over the page to page three, there's a reference there to the

02:16:32 there's a reference there to the fenestration self- assessment scheme and the importance of checking fire safety requirements when replacing windows. Uh that paragraph says that the federation had been in touch with the glass and

02:16:43 had been in touch with the glass and glazing federation in respect of that scheme. Can you help with what work had been done by the federation on that point?

02:16:49 point? No, I can't. But one of the members of that if you remember of the major work stream looking at lacor was the Mike Wood. Mike Wood was very much involved with with glazing of and therefore had

02:17:01 with with glazing of and therefore had taken those messages into that organization. One one of the being a volunteer organization. One of the things that happened when it sometimes look as though nothing's happening is two or three interested people would

02:17:14 two or three interested people would take something on and go away and do it. and that's why you didn't seem to get progress for maybe a couple of three month then they bring something back that they'd actually progressed. Thank you Mr. Davis I've reached the end

02:17:26 Thank you Mr. Davis I've reached the end of my prepared questions. Um sir may have 10 minutes or so to see if there's anything I've missed out or see whether anyone has anything else to suggest. Of course. Well Mr. Davis the council says he's reached the end of his

02:17:37 says he's reached the end of his questions but at this stage we always have a short break to give him a chance to check whether that's really the case and also to give other people who are following our proceedings but not from this room

02:17:48 this room okay

02:17:48 okay to suggest questions that possibly we ought to put to you okay so we'll break down we'll come back at 4 that should be enough time should I think so we'll come back at half past 4 and then we'll see if there are any more

02:17:59 we'll see if there are any more questions for you then thank you very much right so would you like to go to the usher Yeah.

02:18:13 Please. Thank you.

02:30:50 Would

02:30:57 you ask Mr. Davis to come back in, please? Thank you.

02:31:08 Yes, please sit down, Mr. Davis.

02:31:12 Right. Well, we'll see if there are any more questions for you. Okay. Yes, Mr. Can. I have no further questions. So, it leaves me to say thank you very much for attending. much appreciated. Oh, thank you. Well, Mr. Davis, thank you very much

02:31:23 Well, Mr. Davis, thank you very much indeed for coming. I say it on behalf of all three of us. Um, I think we've all found it very interesting to get your insight into what was going on and the proposals you were making and um, so

02:31:35 proposals you were making and um, so although you haven't been here too long, I'm glad to say it has been very helpful to us and we're very grateful to you for coming.

02:31:43 coming. May I just say, of course, that I really support what you're doing. Um, we in the federation really feel bad about this.

02:31:56 really feel bad about this. Yeah. Well, I understand that's and I think going forward a note of caution as well. Um,

02:32:06 it's very easy to see these things as black and white. Mhm. But it's a judgmental process that we're talking about. And I would just worry

02:32:16 worry that fire risk assessment becomes so absolute that we lose sight of the fact that human beings are involved in having to reach judgments.

02:32:27 to reach judgments. Um, I also worry that our emphasis on pre preventing a catastrophe, which we must do,

02:32:35 must do, must also ride into and cascade into general fire safety in all sorts of buildings, not just high-rise residential. And and that to me is very

02:32:48 residential. And and that to me is very very important because whatever happens going forward, I just wish we'd been able to

02:32:56 able to get that message across better and get better government support. I have to say in the last year or so, the the amount of s support coming from government has been a lot

02:33:07 coming from government has been a lot more positive. I'm engaged in something at the moment which may involve actually bringing on a scheme to deal with the wider group of fire risk assessors and the government has responded most

02:33:19 the government has responded most positively to that at the moment. So I just hope and fear that we uh we don't go back into that sort of reluctance to engage which really I think contributed

02:33:31 engage which really I think contributed so much to the loss of those 72 people. Well, thank you and it's it's good to hear that um things are looking a bit more positive now. It's a as you say a pity that perhaps

02:33:43 pity that perhaps similar approach wasn't taken earlier on, but anyway, thank you. Thank you very much indeed for coming. Thank you.

02:33:59 Thank you very much, Mr. Caner. Well, that must be it for today. And we shall be back on Monday of next week.

02:34:09 week. We will where we'll hear from Louise Upton.

02:34:11 Upton. Yes. Good. Well, we'll look forward to that. So, um that's it for the day. 10 o'clock on Monday of next week. Thanks, sir.

02:34:17 sir. Thank you very much.